New report suggests EV's are out of reach for the average American, and broad adoption will actually cause an increase in traditional air pollution

It asks whether the internal combustion engine is on its way out. It soon will be, according to advocates for "zero-emissions vehicle" (ZEV) technologies, especially battery-powered electric vehicles. They claim that ZEVs will offer superior performance, lower cost, and, most importantly, "emissions-free" driving.

Sound too good to be true? That's because it is, according to a new report published by the Manhattan Institute. Dr. Jonathan Lesser, the author of "Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicles," argues that critics of the internal combustion engine fail to consider just how clean and efficient new cars are.

Using a recent forecast prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Lesser's analysis shows that, over the period 2018 - 2050, the electric generating plants that will charge new EVs will emit more air pollution than the same number of new internal combustion engines, even accounting for air pollution from oil refineries that manufacture gasoline.

What's more, EV subsidies benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. A nationwide survey of EV owners in 2017 found that 56% had household incomes of at least $100,000 and 17% had household incomes of at least $200,000. In 2016. median household income for the US as a whole was less than $58,000.

It's time to hit the brakes on the government's drive for electric vehicles.

Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicle Subsidies

Abstract

Many claim that "zero-emissions vehicles" (ZEVs), especially battery-powered electric vehicles, should replace most, if not all, cars and trucks powered by gasoline-burning internal combustion engines. The primary rationale is to reduce air pollution and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

To effect this change, governments are spending billions of dollars to subsidize electric vehicles. These subsidies include state and federal tax credits for purchasing ZEVs and programs to subsidize the installation of vehicle-charging infrastructure in businesses, households, and along highways. Several states also have mandated the sale of ZEVs. For example, an executive order signed by California governor Jerry Brown in January requires 5 million ZEVs to be on the state's roads and highways by 2030.

Will these subsidies and programs accomplish their objectives? And at what cost? A review of the literature finds few cost-benefit studies on these key questions.

KEY FINDINGS

Broad-based adoption of ZEVs will increase overall emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulates, compared with the same number of new internal combustion engines. The simple fact is that, because of stringent emissions standards and low-sulfur gasoline, new gasoline-powered cars and trucks today emit very little pollution, and they will emit even less in the future.

While new ZEVs will reduce CO2 emissions compared with new internal combustion vehicles, the overall reduction will be less than 1% of total forecast energy-related U.S. CO2 emissions through 2050. That reduction will have no measurable impact on world climate-and thus the economic value of CO2 emissions reductions associated with ZEVs is effectively zero.

Subsidies for ZEVs and the required infrastructure to support them benefit the higher-income consumers who can afford to purchase them at the expense of lower-income consumers who cannot. In California alone, the total cost of ZEV subsidies, including federal tax credits and state rebates for ZEV purchases, as well as subsidies for private and public charging infrastructure, is likely to exceed $100 billion.

Anyways, the pollution from combustion engines is destroying people's lives where people are most concentrated. Replacing even 20% of the vehicles with electric motors in my city could have a hugely positive effect, psychic and health, on the lives of nearly 2 million people, many of whom do not actually own, drive an automobile.

Okay, the power plants pollute remote places where 'honest small people' live. Guess what? Them's nuts. Country folk (without stereotyping, from experience living on two continents in different countries, all have the same goal: to get out of the godforsaken country side and see their kids in live an economically secure and physically risk free life. 'Power plant communities' are always on fertile ground. Why? Because throughout the western world the earth and life itself is a commodity, an exchange. Give 100,000 € to 100 families and for 10 million € you've got a remote site for a new power plant that improves the lives of millions of citizens taxpayers, and tomorrow is already looking brighter with less background noise. (Ok, here I'm really dreaming... usually the government just takes these kinds of 'ex-proprio' rights for free, why should they pay?).

Personally I'm invested in a nice car with new age diesel tech stuff. My government already subsidies the rich and powerful, especially amongst themselves... wasting slush funds on something so 'popular' as an electric car is out of the question... plus building new power plants is a lot of work and we would probably need help from the Russians and Chinese to update our systems at a price we can afford!

I'm also invested in some professional grade, battery-powered, gardening tools. Here, where the motor is 'within arm's reach', I've become a believer in battery-powered tools. The noxious pollutants of a small combustion engine, like.a weed-trimmer' are worse than a car engine, and you literally live in your own smog. It's like living in a city but thankfully after a while you can turn it off and sit under a tree. Switching from combustion to battery is quite expensive. Yet it has had a hugely positive impact my 'local community', from my body to the birds and dogs to the trees and neighbours.

I hope the kind of research in this article stimulates ways to smartly plan for more and battery usage, rather than undermine what is currently the first commercial alternative to combustion engines. If some electric cars can reduce exponentially the smog in my region, please do. People can't breathe, and they sure as shit can't escape to some romantic countryside - the romantic countryside in every direction suffers the same miserable air. One thing is certain, combustion motor automobiles fill every street every day. Very few of these are buses, trams and taxis. Electric cars are rarely seen.

The facts are the facts... And all of this electric hoohah is because of a false premise that co2 is causing global warming. Meanwhile, the electric cars don't actually solve that problem unless you build more nuclear plants lol

Yes, we definitely need better energy production and utilization. There are so many areas we can improve.

Thankfully, due to massive 'enlightenment', this is just the direction we're currently headed.

I personally am looking forward to the day when the sun (that bright thing in the sky) finally burns itself out and all life will become totally dependent on hi-tech.

I really can't wait.

There will be a tremendous spurt in job growth and a definite, almost infinite, boost to the economy. Wealth will be achieved universally on a scale we can now only dream about. We will be able to store all that wealth in banks and in insurance companies and other types of commodity transfer. We will all be ceos!

George L The unit cost of energy? You mean efficiency? I would guess they are sort of equal. Burning fuel in a plant to make electricity, (dis-)charging losses, high eff electric motor, versus fuel gathering and storing, burning less efficient but right into movement.